"But ... The Rocks Are All Wrong"

by Richard Busch

[Ed. Note: This article won second place in the adult article
competition in the American Federation of Mineralogical Societies
in 1993.]

The next time you go to the movies, watch the reactions of
the moviegoers to what appears on the screen. You'll notice that
while the cat burglar deftly twirls the dial of the hidden wall safe
and quickly opens it to reveal the priceless jewels within, all of
the locksmiths in the movie theater shake their heads in disbelief.
As the movie doctor operates to save the life of his dying
"patient," the moviegoing real doctors in the
audience roll their eyes to the ceiling.

Well, locksmiths and doctors are not the only people to have
their fields of expertise misrepresented by the entertainment
industry. Geologists and gemologists, too, frequently grit their
teeth at the silent indignities perpetrated on the movie or
television screen. True, a geological inaccuracy rarely contradicts
the central plot of the drama; but to those people properly
attuned, a geological error of fact can undermine the basic
premise of the story.

Some errors are so egregious that the situation is laughable.
Remember the old Superman series on TV? To this day,
I remember an episode in which the Man of Steel takes a lump of
coal in his hand and squeezes it with such force that it changes
into a diamond. That's ok if you accept the basic premise upon
which Superman is based; but when Superman opens his
hand to reveal the newly created gem, we see that it is complete
with facets -- round brilliant, as I recall.

Some geological errors are not so obvious. Lisa Rossbacher points
out several in the February 1993 issue of Geotimes.
If you saw the relatively recent movie The Last of the
Mohicans, you'll remember the beautiful scenery -- rugged
peaks and granitic rocks. The only problem was that the movie was
supposed to take place in upstate New York where the Paleozoic
sediments have been thoroughly glaciated to form rolling hills.
The film was actually made in the Carolinas where the rocks are
all wrong.

Ms. Rossbacher cites other examples of geological errors in
films. Here are some: The Battle of the Bulge features
an exciting tank battle that is supposed to take place in the snowy
Ardennes region of Belgium; halfway through the battle, we see the
tanks rumbling through the Mojave Desert. Rooster Cogburn
and True Grit are supposed to be set in Oklahoma and
Arkansas. Unfortunately, the glaciated mountains in the background
were set in Oregon and Colorado long before any movie makers set up
cameras; glaciers never quite made it to either Oklahoma or Arkansas.
The movie Revolution featured the Battle of Yorktown
being fought, not on the gentle southeastern coast of Virginia, but
rather on some high, white cliffs that bore a striking resemblance
to the famous ones located on the southern coast of England.
Continental drift? Hardly.

Geological errors are not restricted just to movies and television
shows. In 1969, a novel written by Michael Avallone and based upon
a screenplay written by Clifford Gould hit the bookstores. The name
of the novel, chosen by someone other than Mr. Avallone, was
Krakatoa, East of Java. The true location of
Krakatoa--southeast of Sumatra and west of Java--was
not lost upon Mr. Avallone. In fact, he contacted the publishers
and informed them of inaccuracy. Unfortunately, it appears that in
some publishing and entertainment circles marketing takes precedence
over geographical reality and, despite Mr. Avallone's efforts, the title
of the book was not changed to reflect the truth.
[Note: The original version of this article incorrectly stated that
the book's title was the responsibility of Mr. Avallone. In fact, Mr.
Avallone worked to correct the erroneous title that was created by
another individual. I am pleased to set the record straight and
apologize for previously questioning Mr. Avallone's diligence in
researching his novel. -- RAB (1999)]

This brings us to the summer's megahit, Jurassic Park.
Yes, we all know that Jurassic Park is a science
fiction-fantasy-adventure film. But here's the way that science
fiction is supposed to work:
One or two (currently non-existent) scientific developments are
assumed to have been made. Given those assumptions, the
remainder of the film is supposed to operate logically and
consistently within the framework of current knowledge and
reality.

In Jurassic Park, the assumption is that science has
discovered a way to recreate living organisms solely from a sample
of their DNA. Fine, we'll accept that as the premise of the movie.
The rest of the story should conform to established scientific fact.
Too bad that it doesn't.

The most obvious scientific errors in Jurassic Park
have to do with the sizes of the various 'saurs. Apparently Steven
Spielberg likes his dinosaurs big. Both the gentle, vegetarian,
Brachiosauri and the nasty ol' Velociraptors are depicted at about
two to three times their real size. Not only that, but in one scene
Spielberg has an especially plump brachiosaurus standing on its
hind legs to munch veggies from a treetop. Impressive but, given
the size of the creature, it probably should have collapsed into a
heap due to the relative weakness of its leg bones.

But not all of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park are portrayed
as larger than life. The Dilophosauri are presented at about one-third
of their real size, presumably to make this insidiously dangerous
dinosaur look cute. Further, neither the Dilophosauri neck frills
nor their toxic spit have been documented. As depicted in the
movie, the Dilophosauri look more like "gremlins" than dinosaurs.

All of the above notwithstanding, the real error in
Jurassic Park is that the rocks are all wrong. In the
movie, the scientists get their dinosaur DNA from the belly of an
insect that was found inside of a piece of amber. Ok -- no problem
so far. But the movie goes out of its way to tell us that the amber
came from the Dominican Republic; and this is where the error lies.
Dominican amber has been dated at 20 to 40 million years. The dinosaurs
died out 65 million years ago. Thus, the amber in the movie is at
least 25 million years too young to contain remnants of dinosaur
DNA.

Spielberg could have chosen Lebanese amber (115 to 135
million years old) or Siberian amber (80 to 115 million years) or
New Jersey amber (90 million years) or Alaskan amber (80 million
years) or Canadian amber (70 million years). But, no; he chose
Dominican amber -- and got it wrong.

Well, don't let the above comments deter you from seeing
Jurassic Park. The special effects are terrific and
the action is heart-pounding. Go see it if you haven't done so
already. Enjoy it, if you can. Just try not to think about the fact
that the rocks are all wrong.

The preceding article was originally published in the September 1993
issue of Lithosphere, the official bulletin of the
Fallbrook [California] Gem and Mineral Society, Inc; Richard Busch
(Editor).

Permission to reproduce and distribute this material, in
whole or in part, for non-commercial purposes, is hereby granted
provided the sense or meaning of the material is not changed and
the author's notice of copyright is retained.

Last updated: 18 September 2002
http://geopress.rbnet.net/roxwrong.htm